A week after a gunman killed 20 students and 6 adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre responded to those demanding more gun control by calling for more guns. “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press conference on Friday, “is a good guy with a gun.” The NRA’s prescription for preventing tragedies like Newtown: Put armed guards in every public school in America.

Under LaPierre’s proposed “National School Shield” program, the NRA would help the nation’s roughly 100,000 public schools develop emergency plans that include “armed good guys,” which might be retired police or reserve military members. He said all schools should be more like banks and sports arenas, which frequently have armed security. “If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities,” he said, “we must give them the greatest level of protection possible.” He called on Congress to act “immediately” to appropriate “whatever is necessary” to put armed officers in all schools before children return to classes after the holidays.

Shortly after President Obama took part in a moment of silence for the Newtown victims, LaPierre described those people as martyrs who illustrate the need for more security in schools. “Does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn’t planning his attack on a school he’s already identified at this very moment?” he asked, referring to people like the alleged Newtown shooter as “genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.”

Outside the press conference, about 100 people gathered to protest LaPierre’s appearance. Members of PETA stood in a line spanning the entrance, holding signs that read “Ban hunting” and “Teach kindness, not killing.” Other activists had set up a faux-bedroom scene to accuse businesses of being “in bed” with the NRA. There were also protesters unaffiliated with any group. David Churchill, 34, held a placard reading “NRA: Are you here to apologize?” Churchill said he wanted to hear LaPierre say that calls for broader Second Amendment rights had led America down the wrong path. But, he said, he expected him to say that “the guns aren’t the problem. Everything else is the problem.” In his remarks LaPierre blamed gun violence on many forces, such as video games, Hollywood films, music videos and the mass media.

Reporters had to file through multiple security checks to get into the hotel conference room where LaPierre spoke. Still, protestors found their way into the crowd and twice interrupted LaPierre’s remarks. One man held a sign with shaking hands and yelled, “It’s the NRA and assault weapons that are killing our children!” as he was dragged out by security. Reporters attempted to follow the outburst with questions for LaPierre, but no NRA officials took questions during the meeting.

Politicians such as Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who authored the assault weapon ban in Bill Clinton’s landmark 1994 crime bill, have announced plans to push new gun control legislation. The NRA, one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies, has blocked such measures for decades.

Earlier this week, President Obama dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to lead a task force that will recommend policies to address gun violence next month. Biden’s first move was to meet with law enforcement officers, a crucial group in the debate about gun control. LaPierre made a play for that same bloc in his remarks, asking the “millions of qualified active and retired police” to join the NRA in their plan to outfit schools with armed security. “We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act,” LaPierre said in closing. “We can’t lose precious time debating legislation that won’t work.”

In LaPierre's simple world there are only "good guys" and "bad guys". Too bad reality is not so clean cut. Law-abiding good guys have mental illness. They can snap over life events - firing, divorce, etc. Suddently, a "good guy" with an assault rifle is a killing machine. I wonder what LaPierre's simple definition of a "bad guy" is? It's not as clean as black and white. There are many shades of gray...

"In the wake of the shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn.,Jewish groups are looking to build alliances and back legislation to strengthen gun control laws.

A number of Jewish groups have indicated that they will back a gun control bill proposed Monday by Jewish Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the first since the Newtown shooting. It would ban more than 100 assault weapons and ammunition clips that contain more than 10 rounds.Feinstein helped draft the last iteration of an assault weapons ban, in 1994. It lapsed in 2004, after the National Rifle Association fought against its renewal.Rabbi David Saperstein, the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said that his group is assembling a coalition that would be ready to act once the right legislation comes along.

Saperstein told JTA in an interview. “When the parents across America start crying out for effective action, if there's religious leadership, it will galvanize the community to create the moral demand that moves toward sensible legislation.”Staff at the RAC, the locus in the Jewish community for gun control initiatives in past decades, spent Monday reaching out to other Jewish leaders, as well as to leaders of other faith communities.B'nai B'rith International on Monday demanded the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.The Jewish Council for Public Affairs circulated a petition through its constituent Jewish community relations councils that calls for "meaningful legislation to limit access to assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, aggressive enforcement of firearm regulations."The National Council of Jewish Women, which has also taken a leading role in the Jewish community on gun control initiatives in the past, announced its support Tuesday for the Feinstein legislation and for legislation proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would tighten background checks. The NCJW has in the past mobilized a grassroots network of activists to push for gun control legislation. “We support her bill.”The United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly on Monday called not only for a ban on assault weapons, but for longer purchase times, deeper background checks, coding ammunition for identification and banning online sales of ammunition.In addition to Feinstein and Schumer, a number of other Jewish lawmakers have also weighed in. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), who in the next Congress will be the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that “expressions of sympathy must be matched by concrete actions.”Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who is retiring, expressed support for an assault weapons ban and proposed a national commission on mass shootings. In addition to banning assault weapons, Jewish groups are also seeking broader initiatives to address violence.

“We will back any legislation that bans assault weapons and the ammunition as well as giving families what they need to treat individuals with a proclivity toward violence,” said Turnbull, a former vice-chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. “I think this will be the ‘big idea,’ that the president is not going to limit the conversation to just guns."http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=296498

Why build alliances that they already have due to FAITH and ANCESTRY BACK GROUNDS? NO MORE TALK ABOUT THE NRA. How many JEWS are in these groups?

Video about ZIONIST - Jewish Gun Grabbers in America also state who made SCHOOLS GUN FREE ...why would they do that:

Making and selling guns and ammunition is alucrative business for U.S. firearms companies, which will earn nearly$1 billion in profit this year, according to the market research firmIBISWorld. But for the public, the prevalence of guns in American lifecomes at a steep price -- more than 30,000 deaths a year that cost thehealth care system and the economy tens of billions of dollars, Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The fullmagnitude of these public costs and how to stem them remains crudelyunderstood, in part because federal agencies are handcuffed by lawslimiting their research on the subject -- the result of lobbying byopponents of gun control laws. And efforts by the American MedicalAssociation and other health care groups to treat gun injuries anddeaths as a matter of public health have been met with fierce resistancefrom gun-rights activists and politicians.

The murders of 20children and six adults in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre inNewtown, Conn., the second-deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history,have reignited a public debate about firearms ownership and the cost inlives and dollars of gun violence.

Public debate about gunstends to focus on Constitutional arguments about civil rights and onpublic-safety and criminal-justice measures such as restrictions againstthe sale of certain kinds of weapons or ownership by people deemeddangerous. To some in the medical community, however, these argumentsignore the effects that injuries and fatalities from gun use have onAmerican society.

"Death from firearms is not inevitable. It ispreventable," said Georges Benjamin, a physician and the executivedirector of the American Public Health Association.

CITIZENS: PROTECT AND DEFEND THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!!!

ALTER THE CONSTITUTION WHEN AND AS NECESSARY FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND THAT OF YOUR CHILDREN!!!!

REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

CLOSE DOWN THE NRA DEATH MACHINE!

TELL YOUR CONGRESSPERSONS THIS *IS* A 2014 ELECTION/REELECTION ISSUE!

Lets be clear: THE NRA, THE GUN-NUT-PSYCHOS, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT ARE GOING DOWN!!!!

Even more bad actors from Sandy Hook. You are being decieved WAKE UP and watch the video in link....Will CT State Police lock up perps ie bad actors?...Wake Up you are being decieved watch the video link.

The only way to stop bad guys with guns is to stop bad guys from getting guns. Honestly, why would you listen to a gun lobby about what to do about guns? The same answer will always be there - "More Guns". If it was Yo-Yo violence, the Yo-Yo lobby would be adamant that every child should have a Yo-Yo.

Thinking more guns is a solution is absurd. And history shows that armed security at schools does not prevent violence - considering the prime example of school violence, Columbine, fell directly under that "security".

"Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed."

The basic but sad conclusion on many of the comments is that the U.S. deviates from most developed countries in which people seem to trust in their government and fellow citizens, be it UK, Canada, Australia, the Nordic Countries or even Germany. In the U.S. there seems to be huge distrust and fear, and people really seem to think that they have to arm against everybody else. This is the case in many developing countries as well, be it Nigeria, some South and Central American countries, and also in present and former socialist countries. Maybe social responsibility and true acceptance of responsibility of fellow citizens has had too short time to develop. Injustice and feeling of not being treated fairly creates bitterness and aggressions, and although even the best possible justice does not eliminate these problems, they can be lessened to a fraction, it seems. So would it not be cheaper to prevent aggressions than to try to heal the problems by constructing highly expensive prisons which the U.S. has at world record numbers. 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.' (Matthew 26:52)

I find LaPierre's proposal abhorrent, BUT this exact scenario is happening, right now, in other schools across the nation! Some districts and universities not only have an armed guard, they have an entire force of armed police. The hypocrisy, exhibited in now vilifying LaPierre, for proposing something for all schools that you find appropriate for some schools is breath taking. You all claim you want "dialog", LaPierre presents you a topic for consideration, but instead of debating him you vilify him ... the SOLE REASON reason being he is the spokesperson for the NRA! You had no problem with the suggestion when someone else proposes and IMPLEMENTS it, but you become incapable of retaining your objectivity when the NRA proposes exactly the same thing. So much for honest debate.

The Nuts Rejecting Accountability(NRA) won't stop until every nut case has access to military grade firepower. At what point do we marginalize these people and start acting in the best interests of the society at large?

Let me be one of many who will call LaPierre crazy. Absolutely, unequivocally, sanctimoniously, grade "A", certified CRAZY!There are more weapons in America per person than any other country on this earth! The adage:"Guns don't kill people, people kill people is true. But, the more proliferation of arms of mass destruction makes the body count higher even is there is a security guard, trained by the NRA, on site, with an equal weapon. Sadly, it's people like Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, who want to create shooting galleries on the nations school yards. A big gun on site is not the answer! A uniform on site is not the answer! Razor wire and eight-foot high fences is not the answer! Clear headed rational thinking is the answer! Clear headed and rational thinking on systems and methodologies to curb instances of mass murder by anyone using a gun must be the solution. The NRA supports and back big-monied interests making more money over dead and bloodied 6 and 7 year-olds. Multi-filled clips and high-powered assault weapons are for warring armies on a battlefield, not the nations schools!

The NRA's slogan is false and irrational and was designed to appeal to irrational minds. The NRA was not always like this ... before it was taken over by the gun industry via LaPierre it supported reasonable gun control, and recognized that the 2nd Amendment was never about individual gun ownership ("the people" is a collective term that referred to the states).

Let's see, being a conservative means that when it comes to birth control abstinence is the best policy because it is the only sure means to avoid pregnancy but when it comes to gun control then there should be an orgy of guns because good guys need to stop bad guys who have them. Unfortunately, it does need to be said that if no one had a gun then no one would every die from one.

This idea that good guys need guns is simply an extension of survivalist ideas about society where everyone needs a gun to individually protect themselves because society has lost the ability to protect its citizens. Of course, in a society where everyone does has a gun the government has lost control and this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

At this point, I'm beginning to think that the best thing that can happen in the gun debate is for LaPierre to keep mouthing off. The more he mouths off, the better it is for the opposite side. We were worse off when the NRA kept silent actually.

As for the continuous challenges to Australia's relevance as an example of gun control, lets see.

Last gun massacre in Australia was Port Arthur in 1996 (with 35 dead, the death toll was higher than even the Virginia Tech killings). This led to a change in the national policy towards gun ownership and proliferation. We have not experienced another gun massacre since that time.

Do the maths. And try looking at other countries with similar stories, like UK etc. Australia is not a one off example. But America is beginning to be. An example of what not to do in response to gun massacres. And example of how to increase and perpetuate the gun massacres in a country. What you really need to look at is the timeline of gun massacres for US, not anywhere else, to realise that the continuation of this attachment to guns is linked to the continuation of the gun massacres.

As for the spurious claims that restrictions of gun ownership has led to increase in gun related crimes in Australia, in the first place, that's sheer fabrication by NRA and the gun lobbyist in US. In the second place, it's nothing but a blatant attempt to divert the gun debate. Same as LaPierre's attempt to deflect attention away from guns to anything and everything, the media, society, mental illness etc. The excuses are starting wear very thin indeed.

Guns, Guns, Guns. A gun massacre happens? Have more Guns. A gun shoot out happens? We need more Guns. Riiiiiight. Because, according to LaPierre, the problem is. Get this. There aren't enough guns! Seriously, I was wondering at first whether he was trying to make a joke.

I agree that America does have a mental health problem. However, I'm beginning to think that you are looking at the wrong part of society. Maybe, it's time for LaPierre and others like him to get their mental health checked. They are definitely suffering from a serious dissociative disorder. LaPierre wants armed security at schools! I agree with his fears about "people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them”. I think that the people who we need to fear are LaPierre and others like him who are so resolutely determined to keep guns in the hands of a person like Lanzo. Imagine what demons are driving LaPierre and those who support him to so desperately seek to protect the gun in the face of events like the Conneticut shooting. Wonder what voices are whispering in their ears to possess them to spew rubbish to obfuscate the painful clarity posed by the Conneticut gun massacre. Remember, it is a gun massacre. Surely the first, reasonable, logical response is to try to remove the 'gun' to prevent the following 'massacre'.

“We can’t wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act,” LaPierre said in closing. “We can’t lose precious time debating legislation that won’t work.” Exactly. Now apply that to what LaPierre has just said. Asking for the “millions of qualified active and retired police” to join the NRA in their plan to outfit schools with armed security. Like I said, just keep LaPierre talking.

There's an awful lot of chat going on about the UK (which is where I've lived for 60+ years), and a lot of mis-representing going on too.

First, we almost never, ever think about guns perhaps simply because no-one has them and no-one wants them. After each occasion (very rare occasion to be honest) that multiple murders with a gun occurs, the police inevitably get asked if they want to be armed. Their answer is invariably no - if they have guns then the criminals will arm themselves, making it much more dangerous for everybody, and nobody want to start up an arms race.

I read of a man in Portland who shot and killed a youth he found prowling in his kitchen, only to discover it was his best friend's son who had been sent round with a message. Such fatally accidental misunderstandings can't happen in the UK, and don't lay waste two families who have known each other for years, and that's probably a much more common tale than these killing sprees in Newtown, etc.

I have no idea what the answer is for the US. Escalating the fear between citizens may sell papers, get more people to buy arms and join the NRA, but I can't see how it can be conducive to anyone's long-term welfare - least of all your children's.

We have accepted in the UK that increased property crime is a lesser evil than killing people who invade our space. That's our choice, and we know that we can voice our opinions and protest if we wish in public and private spaces without fear of being shot if we want.

The UK is probably the opposite end of the gun owning spectrum, and, in general we like it and we believe it makes for a much less aggressive society. One thing I would add though, is that I can't believe that all these ultra-violent games and films that Hollywood churn out have no effect on adolescent minds - and the NRA are possibly right about that.

@Heian and you think banning guns will keep bad guys from getting guns? We can't even keep illegals out of our country let alone stop illegal substances and weapons from entering our country. So the idea that you can keep guns from the bad guys is the most absurd idea I've heard in awhile.

I've been very heartbroken over the tragedy at Sandy Hook. I'm a father of 2 little ones and I know banning guns won't make them any safer. Look at any country with a country-wide gun ban and you'll find gun related deaths are a-plenty.

Would you try to rob a bank with a gun if you knew if you were outgunned by law-abiding gun owning citizens? I don't think so. Want to keep someone from hijacking a 747 airliner? Allow pilots to carry guns. Oh yeah, they do now because of 9/11. The system works.

No guns sounds like a great idea, just like world peace. But you have to be completely ignorant of the real world to believe a gun ban would work.

@dontn123 I don't think you have any idea what "irony" means. Yes, they do have secret service protection, and you saying "you're missing the point" only shows your desire to change facts and circumstance to suit your argument.

The idea that you should just throw more guns at a gun problem is ridiculous. Your entire argument is ignorant and twisted only to suit your narrow-minded and absurd assumptions.

@BobSheepleherder If you *seriously* argue something stupid here, you're likely to get mocked. That's the way it is; deal with it already or run to the comforting arms of RedState. And if you REALLY think arming schools with guards and teachers like Kindergarten Cops is a sane idea, please feel free to prove so ...oh wait, you just admitted it's an abhorrent idea. Make up your mind, please.

@sora Nice of you to only say "mass murder" like that is what the problem is. You citing Australia as a case for gun ban helps your case on "mass murder" nothing else. I am not worried about being in a mass murder more than i am being murdered on the street or in my home because i didn't have the right to protect myself. As for Australia, try doing some research and really see how things are working there . One thing really stood out Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

@Heian Sorry you are the ignorant one . You missed that the school it self has armed security not just secret service, The secret service is only there because Obama's daughters are going to school there. If they were not there the armed security would still be there. A county in Pa. Butler has just put a armed ex state trooper in every school.

@deconstructiva@BobSheepleherder You seem particularly incapable of understanding plain English and unfortunately that is the only language I am even remotely capable of using. If you read my post at all, you clearly lost your ability to comprehend it as soon as you read "NRA", at which point you started reading all sorts of statements in it that were not there. Try breaking it down into the individual sentences, perhaps that might work. You could do the same for your reply and determine which ones of my statements had any corresponding correlation to yours.